NCAA Mock Tourney Selection 2012

bukie · March 10, 2012

Does anyone else think that the firm use of "Top 25/50/100" wins is kind of silly?

I was just reading that NC State came into the week 0-8 against the Top 50, which was a major blow against its resume. But after everything that happened during the week, they now have 4 wins against the Top 50, which supposedly is a huge bump for their profile. But the teams they beat awhile ago (Miami x2, Texas) are still the same damn teams, but now ranked 48th and 49th instead of 51st and 52nd. I know you have to draw the line somewhere to compare 100 different teams evenly, but still there has to be a way to take those borderline top 50 wins into consideration.

It's the same as wins/losses early on looking better later in the year. Missouri beating the tar out of Cal and Notre Dame looks a lot better now than it did then. Same with IU beating Notre Dame.

bukie · March 10, 2012

Everybody sent me their lists, so I'll just post mine now:

Top 16(+1):

Memphis (C-USA)

Creighton (MVC)

UNLV (MWC)

St Mary's (WCC)

Temple

Louisville

Gonzaga

Florida

Florida State

Kansas State

Vanderbilt

Iowa State

Purdue

Cincinnati

Notre Dame

Murray State (OVC)

St Louis

The leftover 20:

New Mexico

California (Pac-12)

Virginia

Alabama

Connecticut

Long Beach State (Big West)

Harvard (Ivy)

San Diego State

Texas

NC State

VCU (CAA)

West Virginia

BYU

Miami

Drexel

Xavier

Southern Miss

South Florida

Colorado State

Washington

bukie · March 10, 2012

Heh, that's a little funny. Temple is still #16, despite no one putting them at the top of their list (among those that included them). That's how much variance there was in the picks this time. It's a clear #1, too, which is all the more amusing.

Stage 4 results:

S-Curve (top 24, bottom 28):

1. Kentucky (SEC)

2. Syracuse (Big East)

3. Kansas (Big 12)

4. North Carolina (ACC)

5. Ohio State (Big Ten)

6. Duke

7. Michigan State

8. Missouri

9. Indiana

10. Marquette

11. Baylor

12. Michigan

13. Georgetown

14. Wisconsin

15. Wichita State

16. Temple

17. Louisville

18. Florida State

19. UNLV (MWC)

20. Creighton (MVC)

21. Florida

22. Vanderbilt

23. Murray State (OVC)

24. St Mary's (WCC)

...

41. West Virginia

42. Harvard (Ivy)

43. Colorado State

44. Long Beach State (Big West)

45. Xavier

46. Miami

47. VCU (CAA)

48. South Florida

49. BYU

50. NC State

51. Drexel

52. Pac 12 (Arizona)

53. Belmont (Atlantic Sun)

54. Davidson (Southern)

55. South Dakota State (Summit)

56. WAC (New Mexico State)

57. MAC (Ohio)

58. Montana (Big Sky)

59. Lehigh (Patriot)

60. Loyola MD (MAAC)

61. Detroit (Horizon

62. Southland (Lamar)

63. UNC Asheville (Big South)

64. Long Island (NEC)

65. Western Kentucky (Sun Belt)

66. America East (Stony Brook)

67. MEAC (Norfolk State)

68. SWAC (Mississippi Valley State)

The middle 16 (the 7-10 seeds, basically):

Alabama

California (Pac-12)

Cincinnati

Connecticut

Gonzaga

Iowa State

Kansas State

Memphis (C-USA)

New Mexico

Notre Dame

Purdue

San Diego State

Southern Miss

St Louis

Texas

Virginia

Other potentials and spoilers(11):

Arizona

Cal-Santa Barbara

Colorado

Massachusetts

Mississippi

Mississippi State

Northwestern

Seton Hall

St Bonaventure

Tennessee

Washington

Edited March 10, 2012 by bukie

bukie · March 10, 2012

Stage 5, by midnight CST Saturday

1) Discuss (in the thread) any potential movement among teams already in the S-Curve. If anyone appears criminally under or over-seeded, make note of it.

2) Place the new S-Curve entrants into the bracket, aside from the final five at-large teams, because they'll be busy elsewhere.

3) Rank the Middle 16 in order

4) Rank the 5 last at-larges on the S-Curve (Miami, USF, BYU, NC State, Drexel) with the 11 potentials (so it's a rank 16 list). And I bet you thought they were safe.

Edited March 10, 2012 by bukie

Vanilla Ice · March 10, 2012

Looks like Cal might go down to Colorado tonight. Finally bumping Washington from our S-Curve

EDIT: Should we include Miami in the Rank 16 list? Seems like they are generally thought of in the same tier as the other 5

bukie · March 10, 2012

Meanwhile, Cal is four minutes away from letting the Pac-12 steal an additional bid.

bukie · March 10, 2012

Looks like Cal might go down to Colorado tonight. Finally bumping Washington from our S-Curve

EDIT: Should we include Miami in the Rank 16 list? Seems like they are generally thought of in the same tier as the other 5

Sure, but then I can't call it a Rank 16 list anymore, can I?

bukie · March 10, 2012

As far as underseeded, if New Mexico hangs on here, I think they're definitely higher than a 7 seed.

bukie · March 10, 2012

New Mexico wins. They're now the odds-on favorite to win the MWC auto-bid.

bukie · March 10, 2012

Colorado beats Cal. The new favorite for the Pac-12 reverts to LOL, as it will be decided by two teams with RPIs in the high 70s. Which are also the second and third highest RPI teams in the conference now.

Cal now has to depend on its at-large resume, which includes no top 70 wins, because, well, no other Pac-12 teams are in the top 70 anymore.

bukie · March 10, 2012

UCSB wins, so they'll face Long Beach State in the Big West final.

I bumped Washington off the S-Curve and put a Pac-12 placeholder in there for now with Arizona.

UMFan83 · March 10, 2012

Cal has a decent RPI but I don't think it's a lock that they get an at large bid. They only played 3 Top 50 RPI teams this year and lost all 3 by a combined 57 points.

The PAC 12 is having by far the most bizarre major conference season of all time. The entire league seems to be evenly matched all playing like marginal NCAA bubble teams and non able to step up for more than a minute to reach the top of this trash heap. I say they cancel the PAC 12 championship game and give the spot to Northwestern. At least they won 1 game against a Top 25 RPI team.

March 10, 2012

Please tell me only 1 team is coming from the Pac-12.

This conference deserves 0.

bukie · March 10, 2012

If any curious people want to read up on the actual selection rules, the NCAA actually posted them here.

March 10, 2012

I know there was a pretty big gulf once we get past #8 on the S-Curve, but should we reconsider the placement of any of those top 8? Since they've been placed, Syracuse and Kansas have lost in their semis, Duke and UNC could still meet in their title game, OSU and MSU can still meet in their title game, and Mizzou can win their title game tonight.

Personally, I think KU probably falls to #4 on the curve at the moment, and I think the winner of a MSU/OSU B1G championship game may have a compelling case to replace them. And of course, I'll leave out any opinion on Mizzou's placement.

bukie · March 10, 2012

I don't really see Syracuse falling below #2, the gap between UK/Syracuse and everyone else was pretty sizeable as well, and KU was the #3.

As far as KU slipping to #4, that's perfectly reasonable, but then again I had them #4 already. We could potentially re-vote the top 8 again based on further tourney results, but a potential OSU-MSU title game isn't going to be finished until 5 minutes before the selection show anyway.

bukie · March 10, 2012

Cal has a decent RPI but I don't think it's a lock that they get an at large bid. They only played 3 Top 50 RPI teams this year and lost all 3 by a combined 57 points.

The PAC 12 is having by far the most bizarre major conference season of all time. The entire league seems to be evenly matched all playing like marginal NCAA bubble teams and non able to step up for more than a minute to reach the top of this trash heap. I say they cancel the PAC 12 championship game and give the spot to Northwestern. At least they won 1 game against a Top 25 RPI team.

Despite Cal not having any top 60 wins, they're 9-7 vs the top 100, which compared to the bottom of the bubble is safely clear of it, sadly enough.

bukie · March 10, 2012

It's still early, but I don't believe the C-USA is in danger of stealing an at-large bid.

CubColtPacer · March 10, 2012

I know there was a pretty big gulf once we get past #8 on the S-Curve, but should we reconsider the placement of any of those top 8? Since they've been placed, Syracuse and Kansas have lost in their semis, Duke and UNC could still meet in their title game, OSU and MSU can still meet in their title game, and Mizzou can win their title game tonight.

Personally, I think KU probably falls to #4 on the curve at the moment, and I think the winner of a MSU/OSU B1G championship game may have a compelling case to replace them. And of course, I'll leave out any opinion on Mizzou's placement.

If I am reading this rule right, I don't think Kansas can drop to a #2 in favor of Michigan State/Ohio State:

No more than one team from a conference may be seeded in the same grouping of four in line Nos. 1-4 and 13-16 in a region, unless a conference has four or more teams seeded in line Nos. 1-4. In line Nos. 5-12, two teams from the same conference may be placed in the same group of four.

The Big XII only has three teams on the 1-4 lines, so Kansas and Missouri can't end up on the same line. The same goes for North Carolina/Duke in the ACC. So that basically ensures that one of Kansas/Missouri will get a 1, and the same for North Carolina/Duke (as long as nobody falls to the 3 seed line, which is unlikely and in the case of the Big XII Baylor is sitting there already anyway). Am I interpreting that correctly?

bukie · March 10, 2012

I know there was a pretty big gulf once we get past #8 on the S-Curve, but should we reconsider the placement of any of those top 8? Since they've been placed, Syracuse and Kansas have lost in their semis, Duke and UNC could still meet in their title game, OSU and MSU can still meet in their title game, and Mizzou can win their title game tonight.

Personally, I think KU probably falls to #4 on the curve at the moment, and I think the winner of a MSU/OSU B1G championship game may have a compelling case to replace them. And of course, I'll leave out any opinion on Mizzou's placement.

If I am reading this rule right, I don't think Kansas can drop to a #2 in favor of Michigan State/Ohio State:

No more than one team from a conference may be seeded in the same grouping of four in line Nos. 1-4 and 13-16 in a region, unless a conference has four or more teams seeded in line Nos. 1-4. In line Nos. 5-12, two teams from the same conference may be placed in the same group of four.

The Big XII only has three teams on the 1-4 lines, so Kansas and Missouri can't end up on the same line. The same goes for North Carolina/Duke in the ACC. So that basically ensures that one of Kansas/Missouri will get a 1, and the same for North Carolina/Duke (as long as nobody falls to the 3 seed line, which is unlikely and in the case of the Big XII Baylor is sitting there already anyway). Am I interpreting that correctly?

Actually, what it's saying is that you can't put two 1-4 teams from the same conference in the same region unless there are more than four 1-4 teams from a conference (so, the Big Ten). There can be two of the same seed in the same conference, though.

CubColtPacer · March 10, 2012

I know there was a pretty big gulf once we get past #8 on the S-Curve, but should we reconsider the placement of any of those top 8? Since they've been placed, Syracuse and Kansas have lost in their semis, Duke and UNC could still meet in their title game, OSU and MSU can still meet in their title game, and Mizzou can win their title game tonight.

Personally, I think KU probably falls to #4 on the curve at the moment, and I think the winner of a MSU/OSU B1G championship game may have a compelling case to replace them. And of course, I'll leave out any opinion on Mizzou's placement.

If I am reading this rule right, I don't think Kansas can drop to a #2 in favor of Michigan State/Ohio State:

No more than one team from a conference may be seeded in the same grouping of four in line Nos. 1-4 and 13-16 in a region, unless a conference has four or more teams seeded in line Nos. 1-4. In line Nos. 5-12, two teams from the same conference may be placed in the same group of four.

The Big XII only has three teams on the 1-4 lines, so Kansas and Missouri can't end up on the same line. The same goes for North Carolina/Duke in the ACC. So that basically ensures that one of Kansas/Missouri will get a 1, and the same for North Carolina/Duke (as long as nobody falls to the 3 seed line, which is unlikely and in the case of the Big XII Baylor is sitting there already anyway). Am I interpreting that correctly?
Actually, what it's saying is that you can't put two 1-4 teams from the same conference in the same region unless there are more than four 1-4 teams from a conference (so, the Big Ten). There can be two of the same seed in the same conference, though.

Thanks for the correction. I had a feeling I was reading it incorrectly. Although it is actually 4 or more (instead of more than four), so apparently they give themselves a little bit of wiggle room on that.

bukie · March 10, 2012

New bracket! I made a few slight adjustments to the existing S-Curve:

- UNC moved above Kansas, so they go to the St. Louis bracket instead of the West/Phoenix bracket nobody wants.

- IU shifted down slightly and Wisconsin shifted up slightly, so Wisconsin bumps up to the 3 line and IU bumps down to the 2 line after Wisconsin won a semi-road game against Indiana. It bumps Baylor/Marquette/Michigan up slightly as well. Baylor and Marquette stay in the same location/pod, while Michigan gets upgraded to Columbus, Wisconsin to Louisville, and IU bumped out to Portland.

- Temple gets the last 4 spot

- Davidson gets shifted around slightly to account for what we like to call "The BYU problem", since they need to be in Thurs/Sat slots for any potential games.

http://i.imgur.com/AWwUQ.png

Updated S-Curve:

S-Curve (top 24, bottom 28):

1. Kentucky (SEC)

2. Syracuse

3. North Carolina (ACC)

4. Kansas

5. Ohio State (Big Ten)

6. Duke

7. Michigan State

8. Missouri (Big 12)

9. Marquette

10. Baylor

11. Michigan

12. Wisconsin

13. Indiana

14. Georgetown